TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds ? (2) Whether, on the basis of the above investments, any portion of the income from the house can be said to be the income of the Hindu undivided family liable to be excluded from the income of the applicant ?" The assessee, Sri J. P. Varma, is an Assistant Engineer in the Under Ground Water Division, Lucknow. He filed a return for the assessment year 1977-78 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,370. In part III of the return, he declared that his wife had constructed a house bearing No. 22, Chandralok, for about Rs. 1,10,000 out of loans, advances and savings received from her father and others. The assessee's wife, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, also filed her Individual return. Regarding the investment in the construction of the house prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the assessee was without normal consideration of interest. Therefore, the assessee was the real owner of the house property, No. 22, Chandralok. The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 5,710 as income from the property in question as computed in the assessment of the assessee's wife and the assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer accordingly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the house property belonged to the assessee's wife and the income therefrom had to be assessed in her own hands. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,710 was deleted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Department preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee filed cross-objections. Both the appeal and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the house property in question does not belong to the Hindu undivided family and there never was any declaration or blending of the same into the Hindu undivided family nor were any funds ever used for investment as Hindu undivided family funds. The decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Radhey Shyam Shri Krishna v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 602 which was on the peculiar facts of the case also does not help the assessee. In the result, the amount of Rs. 5,710 representing the income from the house property was rightly taxed by the Income-tax Officer in the hands of the assessee who held it in the name of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari. We hold accordingly. " The assessee applied under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for referring cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciated the law enunciated in section 227(2) of Mulla's Hindu Law and in the case of Radhey Shyam Shri Krishna [1982] 137 ITR 602 (All) and has, therefore, erroneously held that the sum of Rs.69,020 is not attributable to the Hindu undivided family funds, as claimed by the assessee. After hearing learned counsel for the Department, we are satisfied that learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission. Section 227 (2) of Mulla's Hindu Law reads as follows: "227(2) Similarly, where members of a joint family who have control over the joint estate, blend with that estate property in which they have separate interests, the effect is that all the property so blended becomes joint family property." According to the Mitakshara Scho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into the hands of sole surviving coparcener and if a son is born to the sole surviving coparcener, the said properties become the joint family properties in his hands and in the hands of his son. D. S. Agalawe v. P. M. Agalawe [1983] 2 SCC 126. The observation made in Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri [1901] ILR 25 Mad. 149, 154, were quoted with approval in Ghamandi Ram's case, AIR 1969 SC 1330,1334: "As regards the property of such family, the 'unobstructed heritage' devolving on such family with its accretions, is owned by the family, as corporate body, and one or more branches of that family, each forming corporate body within a larger corporate body may possess separate 'unobstructed heritage' which, with its accretions, ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m his cousins in lieu of his share in the father's property. The Tribunal did not accept the claim with regard to the sum of Rs. 16,000 because the original deed of family settlement was not produced and the evidence adduced by the assessee in support of his claim was not such as to inspire confidence. However, the claim of the assessee in respect of Rs. 23,137 obtained under a succession certificate seems to have been accepted. This amount was and continued to be ancestral property in the hands of the assessee qua his sons and its true character could not be extinguished by any act or omission on the part of the assessee. It has been shown that the assessee invested the said amount in National Savings Certificates in various names and, the....